Longer maternity leave: Boon or bane?
The role of women in society has truly evolved. Then, they were mere child bearers or, worse, just sex objects. They had no rights at all to speak about. They can’t vote, they can’t drive, they can’t even get employed or earn a living. In fact, they were not wives, just their husbands’ servants.
In recent years, except for a few countries, their roles have truly changed for the better. We are now witnesses of how they’ve become great international and national leaders in almost all of aspects of governance, whether private or public. Women Prime Ministers, Presidents and Senators abound and lady Chairs, Presidents and CEOs are likewise in great numbers in internationally known and very influential multinational companies all over the globe.
Indeed, today, there are industries where we see more women in the workforce than men. Since, as child bearers, such role is irreplaceable, it is understandable that concerns on their welfare should not be overlooked. So that, as we try to look into their wellbeing, we shall take a look at the bill (no. 2656) introduced by Sen. Antonio F. Trillanes IV on February 17, 2015 that shall supposedly amend existing laws extending maternity leave benefits from sixty (60) days to one hundred twenty (120) days.
Relative to such proposed amendment, Sen. Trillanes emphasized that “The vital role of women in society and economy has long been recognized in our country.” That “The Philippine Constitution under Art. II, Sec. 14 states that the State shall recognize the role of women in nation-building and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of men and women.” And that “Art. XIII, Sec. 14 of our Constitution, provides that the State shall protect working women by providing safe and healthful working conditions taking into account their maternal functions, and such facilities and opportunities that will enhance their welfare and enable them to realize their full potential in the service of the nation.”
Curiously, however, in justifying the aforementioned proposal, he stressed that “in 2008, UNICEF cited the Philippines' Mortality Rate wherein thirty two (32) Filipino children (per 1,000 live births) die before the age of five and the Philippines ranked 86th among 190 countries with the highest under-five mortality rate”. He further stressed that “the report also cited several recommendations that would help reduce our country's mortality rate among which is access to exclusive breastfeeding for a long period of time.” Moreover, he underlined the fact that “WHO even recognizes breastfeeding as an ideal way of providing young infants with the nutrients they need for healthy growth and development.” Then concluded that collectively “this recognizes maternity as a vital social function played by women and protects the rights of working women and their infants to proper health care by increasing the maternity leave of working women from sixty (60) days or eight (8) weeks to one hundred eighty (180) days or twenty-four (24) weeks thereby allowing mothers to breast feed their child for at least six (6) months.”
Generally, anything that addresses welfare of our women, in general, and those with the workforce, in particular, will always be good. In the meantime, however, let us examine the facts and the possible outcomes before concluding. First and foremost, while the country’s mortality rate is undisputedly accurate, the figure does not delineate clearly as to how many of these mortalities belong to working women and how many are those of non-working child bearers. Remember, the senate bill addresses only that of working women, not all women. If the recorded mortalities are those of working mothers, then, the bill addresses it. If these belong to those unhealthy mothers in slums or those of street dwellers, then the bill does not apply.
Moreover, the bill, if approved, could possibly impede employment of women. Potential employers may no longer consider hiring women for reasons of cost and availability. These are both efficiency concerns that employers will always give ample considerations. As they always say, even if the employee is 100% good, if she isn’t there, then, she is a 0% performer. She shall tantamount to nothing.
In enhancing this bill, however, the proponent and the other members in the senate should consider other options or possibilities especially those that are used successfully by other countries. For instance, countries, like New Zealand or Iceland call it as “parental leave”. Though we have our own fixed paternity leave, their “parental leave” is entirely different. Totally different in that while there is mandatory number of days allocated for the mother (and they call it birth leave), the other days are transferrable to the husband. This is good because some families have working mothers and househusbands. With this setup, the working mother can return to work and the child can still be taken cared well enough. Additionally, a breastfeeding area maybe designated in every institution. This way, the househusband will have the opportunity to bring the child to the mother for breastfeeding.
With this setup, the employers shall profit from the mothers’ presence and the children, shall, likewise, benefit from the generally accepted breastfeeding options. Definitely, therefore, a win-win situation.
- Latest
